Question 6:

6. What might it mean to "win" in actual world politics (as opposed to in a board game simulating some aspects of world politics)?

In actual world politics, I think winning would be considered controlling the areas of the world that are significant to your particular nation and doing so peacefully. There probably wouldn't be a certain winning point but there could be a point in which most of the countries goals are slowly being accomplished, which could be considered winning. However, if the goals of a certain nation are being accomplished with much force, damaging lives and futures of various peoples, the "win" would not be legitimate. The more diplomacy involved in the accomplishments of the country, the closer they will become to "winning".

Question 5:

5. Think back to our game of Diplimatic Risk. What resources or opportunities would you have needed in order tp fulfill your objectives? What difference would those resources or opportunities have made?

When thinking back to our game, I think the most crucial thing that I would have needed in order to fulfill my objective would be time. My objective was to control ten adjacent countries. My special power was that I was able to attack someone without going through the process of declaring war. I had taken over a few separate groups of countries but needed another round to declare war on another power, so I would be able to take over their countries. The alliance that I had was very useful and I was able to make a deal in order to trade over countries that were important for me. However, if I had the opportunity to play another round, I would have declared war and possibly come closer to fulfilling my objective.

Question 1:

1. Would the world be a more peaceful place if everyone spoke the same language? Think here specifically about issues of communication and diplomacy.

In my opinion, the world would be a much easier place to live in if everyone spoke the same language. This would probably prevent many world wars because there would be less misunderstandings between countries. Each nation would understand the culture and customs of the others and wouldn't have to second guess the actions of another nation. Diplomats would understand exactly what another representative from a different nation was trying to explain without any doubts. Diplomats would not have to worry about figuring out a direct translation from one language to the other. Requests would be very specific and therefor problems could possibly be solved easier.

5th question answer

Think back on our game of Diplomatic Risk. What resources or opportunities would you have needed in order to fulfill your objectives? What difference would those resources or opportunities have made?

In the game Diplomatic Risk I would have used the sanction to move my troop to Canada and then eventually taken the territories marisa had and taken over the whole of the United States of America. If Marisa had attacked me I may have used my secret power of sabotage to prevent me from being attacked. I would also have had to gain more territories from other people to be able to have the 15 or more territories I needed.

People may criticize the fact that this is not possible but they don't realize that what happens in this game is not real. Also I never actually said that I was actually going to take all of the United States of America or use my secret power against a possible attacker.

3rd question answer

Should states care about the performance of their national team at a global sporting competition, such as the Olympics or the World Cup? Why or why not?

I feel that states should care because these are people who have been selected by the state to become representatives. I really can't see any reason why states wouldn't care. There are no reasons to suggest why states wouldn't care. The teams are people who are professionals and are experienced. It is not like they are sending people who would make the state look bad. The only criticism that would occur would be when states send people who have a previous record of bad behavior whilst representing the state in anything.

In a global sporting event it is even more important because it really does matter how the state looks. If the state looks bad then there is a good chance that the coach doesn't care enough about the team. There is also the chance that the government is corrupt and the diplomacy is not as good as it should be.

Answer to Question 5:

Think back on our game of Diplomatic Risk. What resources or opportunities would you have needed in order to fulfill your objectives? What difference would those resources or opportunities have made?


To complete my objective for the game of Diplomatic Risk, I would have had to use the opportunity of my ability (Guerrilla warfare) to recapture Russia as soon as it was taken from me. I would have also had to have used my chance to begin war with the red and green players to capture North Europe and the other Western Territory. I would have also had to cut my alliance with the blue player and started a war with them for Afghanistan.

The opportunities I had and the resource of my ability would have allowed me to get a lead and maybe it would have allowed me a chance to win depending on what the other players did.

Answer to Question 3:

Should states care about the performance of their national team at a global sporting competition, such as the Olympics or the World Cup? Why or why not?


I believe that states should care somewhat about their nations teams but not enough to the point where if the team fails at something that they are publicly humiliated.

The way teams interact on the field as well as off the field is like how the states interact during diplomatic meets. If a state is strict on their team then they most likely are going to be strict in their diplomatic views. If a team was to fail in their nations eyes because they lose a game and are humiliated because of it then that speaks a lot about how the nation looks to the rest of the world.

If the nation doesn’t mind as because their team tried their best and represented their nation well by how they played and by how they treated the other team then that would make the nation look better in the diplomatic views of other nations.

I believe that it would be best if national teams were able to represent their nations in both the sport and their diplomatic views without the option of being criticized for one loss. They should be the bringers of good faith and hope, not of bad faith and deceit.